PeterN
On 9/22/2014 5:48 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:03:06 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

nospam
In article <lvpc9u01no0@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:

the proof is in the link and has already been pointed out more than once. it's a simple thing to do. have you done it? no. instead, you spew nonsense, demonstrating just how much of an idiot you are.

PeterN
You made a statement, I asked for proof, and you trun to pejoratives.

nospam
proof was provided.

if you aren't going to bother reading it (even before you asked) and doing what it describes, then my response is very appropriate and not pejorative at all.

PeterN
No 132 "proof was provided."

nospam
it was.

PeterN
I knew tht answer before you posted it. Though posssibly you might have used "you wouldn't understand it."

nospam
you don't.

PeterN
Since you htink I am hat dumb, in the interesting of communicationg, restate your "proof."

nospam
read the link eric provided.

either it's over your head or you'd rather argue.

<https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-LAB-damage.htm>

PeterN
Typical error 404

nospam
it worked for you the first time.

either that or you're lying.

Eric Stevens
He probably didn't notice that the tail of the URL had wrapped.

https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-LAB-damage.htm

or http://tinyurl.com/kuub8ad

PeterN
I noticed and was hoping nosense would have conducted his own exeriments. I went back and forth and saw no change in output. Proof of a concept includes statement of the methodology, together with a display of the results, in such manner that anyone can reproduce the results. When the claiment resorts to name calling, there can be little realistic hope of proof.